Introduction:
The case of Sadhana Shivhare v. State of Rajasthan came before the Rajasthan High Court and raised significant questions about the constitutional obligations of the State under Articles 21 and 47 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, Sadhana Shivhare, a license holder of a liquor shop in Jaipur, challenged the State’s decision directing her to change the location of her shop. Her shop had been allotted in Kishanpole Bazar, a busy and densely populated market, under the State’s Excise Policy for 2021-22. However, on 13 August 2025, the Excise Department issued her a notice citing “public resentment” and instructed her to shift her shop to an unobjectionable area. Aggrieved, she approached the High Court questioning the rationale behind the order, particularly since the shop’s allotment had been approved by the State itself under its policy framework. The matter came up before Justice Sameer Jain, who while issuing notice to the State, observed that the allotment of liquor shops in highly crowded public markets appeared prima facie to contravene Articles 21 and 47 of the Constitution. The Court directed the State authorities, including the Commissioner of Excise and the Principal Secretary, to appear via video conferencing on the next date of hearing and furnish the State’s Temperance Policy, along with a justification for permitting liquor shops in areas surrounded by temples, schools, and other socially sensitive places. The case not only highlights the conflict between commercial interests and constitutional morality but also brings into focus the obligation of the State to safeguard public health and morality while regulating liquor trade.
Arguments of the Petitioner:
The petitioner, represented by her legal counsel, advanced several contentions challenging the decision of the Excise Department. It was argued that the liquor shop had been duly allotted to her under the Rajasthan Excise Policy for 2021-22, and she had been running it in accordance with the rules and licenses issued by the government. The petitioner emphasized that the State had itself approved the shop’s location in Kishanpole Bazar, one of Jaipur’s oldest and busiest market areas. Having carried out her business as per the State’s own approval, it was unreasonable and arbitrary for the authorities to suddenly direct her to relocate the shop citing public resentment.
The petitioner further argued that such relocation not only caused her financial loss but also undermined the sanctity of the allotment process. It was submitted that once a liquor license is allotted for a particular location, the license holder acquires a legitimate expectation to run the shop at that designated place for the tenure of the license. While the petitioner conceded that there was no absolute vested right to sell liquor, she contended that arbitrary interference by the State undermined the principles of fairness, non-arbitrariness, and equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Additionally, the petitioner challenged the reasoning of “public resentment,” submitting that public objections were foreseeable at the time of allotment itself, as Kishanpole Bazar has always been a densely populated and socially sensitive area with schools, temples, and heavy public movement. If the State considered these factors while framing its Excise Policy, it should not have approved the location in the first place. She argued that the State’s volte-face exposed serious flaws in policy implementation and imposed undue hardship upon legitimate license holders who had invested in business operations in reliance on government approvals.
The petitioner also sought to highlight that arbitrary relocation orders not only jeopardize her business but also send a negative signal about governance practices. She prayed for quashing of the notice and for directions that she be allowed to continue operating her shop at the allotted location until the expiry of her license period.
Arguments of the Respondents:
The State, represented by its counsel, defended the decision directing relocation of the petitioner’s shop. It was submitted that the liquor trade is not an ordinary business but a heavily regulated activity where the State retains overarching powers to regulate, restrict, or even prohibit its operation in public interest. The counsel emphasized that under constitutional and statutory framework, no person has a vested right to sell liquor and that the State retains absolute control over granting, regulating, or cancelling licenses in line with public policy.
The State justified its order by citing growing public resentment in Kishanpole Bazar regarding the presence of liquor shops in close proximity to temples, schools, and places of social gathering. The authorities claimed that several complaints had been received from local residents, religious groups, and parents, highlighting the adverse impact of locating liquor shops in a busy public market area where families, children, and worshippers frequent on a daily basis. The State contended that ignoring such complaints would amount to failure of its constitutional duty under Article 47, which mandates the State to endeavor to prohibit intoxicating drinks injurious to health.
The respondents argued that relocation orders are not punitive but corrective measures aimed at balancing economic activity with societal concerns. The counsel pointed out that Article 21, which guarantees right to life and personal liberty, has been judicially interpreted to include the right to live with dignity, health, and a pollution-free environment. Allowing liquor shops in densely populated markets, the State contended, risked violating the right to health and public safety of local communities.
Furthermore, the State submitted that the petitioner’s grievance of financial hardship cannot override constitutional morality and public health considerations. The authorities have the power to change the location of liquor shops to unobjectionable areas when it is found that their presence in a certain locality creates law and order issues, offends public sentiments, or endangers health and morality. Hence, the relocation order was fully justified. The State assured the Court that alternate unobjectionable sites would be allotted to the petitioner in accordance with policy, thereby safeguarding her business interests while addressing public concerns.
Court’s Judgment:
Justice Sameer Jain, after hearing both sides, delivered an interim order that carried far-reaching constitutional significance. While issuing notice to the State, the Court observed that prima facie, the allotment of liquor shops in a crowded public market like Kishanpole Bazar was inconsistent with Articles 21 and 47 of the Constitution. Article 21 guarantees the right to life and liberty, which includes the right of communities to live in a safe and healthy environment free from nuisances and hazards. Article 47, which forms part of the Directive Principles of State Policy, imposes a moral obligation upon the State to endeavor to prohibit the consumption of intoxicating drinks and drugs that are harmful to health, except for medicinal purposes.
The Court emphasized that though liquor trade is not an absolute right, the State has a constitutional responsibility to regulate it in a manner consistent with public welfare. The Judge remarked that despite having a Temperance Policy aimed at discouraging liquor consumption, the State itself had allotted shops in areas like Kishanpole Bazar, surrounded by schools, temples, and dense public activity, which runs contrary to the spirit of Article 47. The Court found the State’s action contradictory—on the one hand, professing temperance and on the other hand, approving liquor outlets in socially sensitive and heavily populated areas.
Accordingly, the Court directed the Commissioner of Excise and the Principal Secretary to appear via video conferencing on the next date of hearing and produce the State’s Temperance Policy for judicial scrutiny. The Court also required the State to furnish a reasonable justification for allotting liquor shops in such areas and to explain how such allotments align with Articles 21 and 47.
The Court reiterated that the petitioner had no vested right to sell liquor and that the State retains full control over regulating liquor trade. However, it stressed that the State’s policies must be consistent, transparent, and constitutionally compliant. The Court’s interim observations make it clear that while the petitioner’s personal grievance was the immediate cause for litigation, the larger issue at stake was the constitutional morality of the State’s Excise Policy itself.
The matter was posted for further hearing on 9 September, with the expectation that the State would place on record its temperance roadmap and policy justifications. In doing so, the Rajasthan High Court has opened the door to judicial scrutiny of liquor licensing policies across the State, particularly in relation to their compliance with fundamental rights and directive principles. This order underscores the judiciary’s role in holding the State accountable for ensuring that commercial policies do not override constitutional imperatives of health, safety, and morality.